Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
To Darwinpoodle , An Answer To "Answer Me This"

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics
Posted by Aaron Viviano on May 7, 2002 22:15:25 UTC

Well I will just have to correct you on some things.

Quote #1 "But geologic processes certainly take longer the a few thousand years." Wrong Mt. St. Helens, Earthquakes, Volcanoes, Floods, Land slides, Sink holes, etc...

Quote #2 "The grand canyon alone could not have taken 6000 years to develop by present day erosion rates."
You are right, but who says that the grand canyon was formed by slow erosion? Let us look at the geological structure of grand canyon: 1. It has high sloped walls 2. It has a high amount of curves 3. The Colorado is small compared to the size of the canyon 4. The Colorado enters in at 2000 feet and exits at 1800 5. the highest point in the canyon is 6000 feet. First let us look at point 1 & 2. In geological terms these can't occur together, a fast river produces steep walls and a straight river, but a slow river produces low angled walls and a lot of curves. The Grand canyon shouldn't exist, also even with millions of year the Colorado just doesn't have enough power to create the canyon. Second; points 4 & 5 tell us that the canyon is higher than the rivers entry point. This can't happen! I don't know the last time I checked, but Newton's laws were in place the last time I checked, which means water doesn't flow up hill to erode it. Now we have determined that 1. The canyon shouldn't exist if it was created by the Colorado 1A.Conflicting Geological formations 1B. The river doesn't have enough power, not even after millions of years 2. The river couldn't have created the canyon because the canyon is higher than the entry point of the river, by thousands of feet!!! Water doesn't go UP hill when it is flowing Down.

Now of course some of you might say "So than how was it created if it wasn't over millions of years?" Two words: Breached Dam. (Let me first say that a lot of what about I'm about to say goes of in a lot of directions that won't be explained in full here. If you have a specific question about one of them I would love to show you why I believe in it. I just think that this post is going to getting long in the first place and I don't want people to getting confused by a really long post.) The Breached Dam is the only way that it is geologically possible for the Grand Canyon to form. When a Breached Dam occurs it creates a canyon that has steep sides and is very curvy. (Sounds a lot like the Grand Canyon.) Now unfortunately one must have ash or mud for this to work, but that is what was there in the first place. Let me give you my view on how it happened. Directly after the flood there was the Ice Age, ask later, now as the water slowly asswaged (to rise and fall) the land that was reviled was dried out. Note: this took months, the bible doesn't say that after 40 days and nights of world wide flooding Noah just got out and left, he stayed in the ark. It was actually about 6 months before God even let Noah out and who knows how long it exactly took after the flood for the water to come to their current levels. Probably hundreds of years. Anyway as the Ice caps melted they created many of lakes of water, some of these are still here, such as the Great lakes, other would build up until there dam broke. One of these lakes formed right in front of where the Grand Canyon began and then itís dam broke causing a Breached Dam Canyon. As for the top of the Canyon Iím not sure completely What caused the part above it, but it was probably the flood or Ice after words. However since the water was rising and falling according to the bible, it could have been washed away by the rising seas. That part has no evidence just a theory of my own. Oh and one more thing the Mediterranean and the Black sea were back filled or Breached Dammed. Recent scans of the bottom proved that they were back filled.

Quote #3 "The bibles flood account is flawed based upon simple logic."
Just because your beliefs don't agree with mine doesn't mean that mine aren't based on logic, after all hundreds of years ago it was "Obviously Logical" that the Sun went around the Earth, but that just isn't true. With science there are a set of rules that I follow; Rule #1: Today's Fact, Tomorrowís False Assumption. (Yes I do apply this to my beliefs, I used to believe that the world was millions of years old too and now look at me.) Just because something is fact now doesn't mean that it is true, the same applies to logic.

Quote #4 "Since there were no forms of communication with the rest of the world in biblical times, how did they know the entire world was flooded. Did they talk with natives of Mexico and The America's to see if they were flooded out. Oh that is right, God told them. Funny how God was much more personable back in the olden days." First no one survived in the America's or Mexico so it would be pointless to even try to communicate with them. Second every culture has flood legends that nearly match the one in the Bible, there are over 200 of these recorded. So they must have come from a single pervious culture. Third if it was a local flood why didnít God just tell Noah to move? Forth God is just as talkative know as ever people claim to talk to God all the time, sure there are nut cases, but Iím sure people have had genuine conversations with God. Just because it hasnít happened to you doesnít mean that it doesnít happen.

Quote# "Sorry if your religious fervor and blind faith have clouded your objective view of the world, but you are wrong."
Really does it sound like my religion is blinding me in this post or that I have blind faith? No it doesn't, but your bias about my beliefs and the assumption that my faith is blind is clearly evident in yours.

If I have any contradictions or false information or if I didnít finish a point or answer your objection to something as fully as you would like in here, please let me know. Thank You.

There Now I have something up, so Iím not just complaining. ;-)

Oh and stormcrow I'm working on ansering your questions I just did Scott's First. Thank You for waiting

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2023 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins